IMPROVEMENT TRUST, HOSHIARPUR vs Rashpal Singh

THIS revision petition is preferred by the petitioner, Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter called Improvement Trust) against the order of the Punjab State Commission in appeal dated 4.9.1997. Brief facts of the case are : The complaint filed by the complainant Mr. Rashpal Singh, the present respondent in this case against the petitioner was for refund of the earnest money of Rs. 4,000/- with interest @ 18% p.m. deposited by him on 28.8.1997 for allotment of a plot. His case was that the draw was held after three years on January 8, 1991 in which he was not successful and yet the amount was not refunded to him by the petitioners. The revision petitioner argued that another scheme for allotment of plots was advertised by them in the newspapers on 11.6.1996. On 26.6.1996, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent mentioning about this and also mentioning that those persons who have deposited Rs. 4,000/- in 1987 and not withdrawn, the same are also eligible to be considered.

IT is the case of the respondent that he replied on 1.8.1996 mentioning that during the long period from 1987 to 1996, no allotment has been made by the Improvement Trust. He further added that in the meanwhile, his wife acquired another plot of land and his own income slab has improved. He also mentioned that his previous application dated 28.8.1987 should be considered and in case this is not possible, Rs. 4,000/- deposited may be returned to him with penal interest @ 18%. It is admitted by both the parties that there is no dispute about the refund of Rs. 4,000/- the deposited amount. The District Forum held that the Improvement Trust utilised the money of the respondent for a long time and hence ordered payment of interest of 10% with effect from the date of deposit i.e. 28.8.1987. It is to be noted that 10% is the rate of interest the Improvement Trust also charges on delayed payments due to it. In the petitioner''s appeal, the State Commission partially modified this order and ordered that the interest should be paid from a period three months after the draw in January, 1991 when the respondent did not succeed in getting the plot.

The crux of the arguments taken before us by the revision petitioner, is that the relevant clause of the advertisement published by them clearly mentions that no interest would be paid and secondly that the respondent did not claim any refund but allowed the money to be retained in order to avail the opportunity of allotment in subsequent draws. It is further argued that it is only when the revision petitioner wrote to the respondent about the fresh Scheme of allotment in June, 1996 that the respondent for the first time claimed refund with interest vide his letter of 28.8.1997.

THIS Commission in a number of previous cases already held that service agencies cannot keep money of the customers for unconscionably long periods. After the payment of money, the first draw was held after three (3) and a half years which is on undisputed fact. Thereafter nothing happened for another five and a half years and it is only in June, 1996 that the petitioners came out with a fresh allotment scheme on the basis of fresh applications. One does not know how many more years it would have taken for the actual draw for allotment of plots, considering the past experience. It is a fact that all these years which is now over 14 years that the revision petitioner used the money of the respondent. With the above discussions we find that the order of the State Commission is eminently reasonable and we affirm the same, with costs of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the petitioners. Revision Petition disposed of.